Stewarding Emergence - Part 2: Inequity
Continuing the series on “Stewarding Emergence”, today I wanted to cover one of the more common obstructions to emergence - inequity.
If you’re unfamiliar with inequity (or equity), the popular illustration of kids looking over a fence will probably do it more justice than any words I can muster.
In the context of emergence, inequity is both limiting and useful. You can probably guess how it is limiting - fewer voices, fewer ideas, less diversity, less innovation. Fewer and less sound bad, but it’s important to remember that inequity doesn’t prevent emergence - something will emerge. It may be a dictatorship, it may be a revolution, it may be an echo chamber, it may be the most innovative idea the one person able to participate has ever had, it could even be the most amazing idea in the universe.
Inequity is an obstruction because it reduces your odds of achieving a novel, positive outcome within your group. Remember our definition of “emergence”: the properties or outcomes of a convening group that cannot be predicted or created in advance. When only one or a few voices are dominant, the results become much more predictable, and the likelihood they are positive for everyone in the group approaches 50% (often times significantly less).
Ben Chestnut, CEO of MailChimp, gave a Creative Mornings talk on introducing entropy to spur a creative culture. Entropy is pretty equitable stuff. Chaos happens. To everyone. Introduced intentionally and broadly, a little randomness helps to spur innovative thinking and opportunities for unexpected collaboration. Whether it’s creative chaos or using Liberating Structures or simply having everyone join virtually because some folks on the call are remote, removing obstructions to equity allows the unnoticed, the unseen, and the unheard to surface in the group.
But wait… I said inequity was also useful? Shifting the balance of power in a group from “power over” to “power with” can certainly be useful for emergence. It could mean giving some participants less (at least, less than they are used to or what they perceive as equitable). Bringing inequitable interactions to the surface in a group - e.g., having the most junior participant interact 1:1 with the CEO, creating intentional differences in height, senses, and abilities, labeling a difference in treatment, in language, or in values, etc. - can actually invite emergence. To the extent we are willing to open our eyes and acknowledge it; better still, to the extent we are willing to act to remove it, inequity can represent both obstruction and opportunity.